[TrailRunner]

I'd love some feedback on this one. Been going round and round all week looking at reviews and photos...

So, I'm looking for the best wide to portrait length lens out there for my K3. Not entirely opposed to getting a top notch prime instead (i.e. FA 31), but would really prefer an all in one wide to portrait lens.
My top priorities:

Very good to excellent bokeh
Very sharp
Excellent color rendering (really want this, not just a sharp lens)
WR is definitely preferred but not essential
Dependable (so, trying to avoid the zooms that seem to fall apart or have significant issues after one year of use)

Size not too much of a factor. Don't mind spending about $800 if needed. Just want the best bang for the buck. Have been considering the Sigma 18-31 Art (looks like the focusing issues can be worked around), Pentax 20 40 (though am concerned about inconsistent sharpness at various lengths), the Pentax 18 65 (though worried about lack of bokeh and sharpness).
Perhaps I'm just asking for the impossible, but I'd love some feedback. Thanks in advance for your thoughts, and links to images with recommended lenses always appreciated :-)

---

Last edited by TrailRunner; 03-21-2015 at 06:28 PM.

[k0og]

Hello,

My daughter uses the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM (Art) with her K-50 in her studio, as well as outdoors, for portraiture and is VERY happy with it. Her results are excellent. She has had no auto-focus problems with hers. She even shot a wedding with it recently (I served as her second shooter), and it was excellent for that purpose. It's expensive, fairly big and heavy, but the results are very much worth it. Read the reviews (both from users as well as from the PF staff).

-Joe-

[Digitalis]

The Pentax FA31mm f/1.8 is a lens I have used for years and it is an excellent lens, it does everything well. The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 ART has been known to have focusing issues that will require you get an additional lens dock to correct them*.

The FA31 is designed to cover full frame - something that the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 or the Pentax 20-40mm f/2.8-4 are unable to do**, so if you choose to get a full frame camera later on it will still be able to be used, and provide excellent image quality as well.


The FA31 is a lens that produces consistent results - which is why I have used it for just about everything except wildlife and extreme macrophotography

it does portraiture well:



Landscapes:



Close up stuff:


*Caveat emptor. You may luck out and buy a copy that has no issues whatsoever, but there is also a chance you will get a copy that will never focus accurately with PDAF. Even the copy I have is only accurate 78% of the time.
**Technically the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 ART can cover full frame above 24mm. A 24-35mm f/1.8 zoom lens isn't anything to get excited about.

[Stavri]

You can never go wrong with the 31 ltd, if you can afford it by all means get one. Get a Super-Takumar 50mm f1.4 (8-elements) if you have some extra cash lying around as well ..

[Driline]

Another vote for the FA 31. You can buy a used version for ~ $800. I paid $750 for my Made in Japan version.

[Adam]

I'd love some feedback on this one. Been going round and round all week looking at reviews and photos...

So, I'm looking for the best wide to portrait length lens out there for my K3. Not entirely opposed to getting a top notch prime instead (i.e. FA 31), but would really prefer an all in one wide to portrait lens.
My top priorities:

Very good to excellent bokeh
Very sharp
Excellent color rendering (really want this, not just a sharp lens)
WR is definitely preferred but not essential
Dependable (so, trying to avoid the zooms that seem to fall apart or have significant issues after one year of use)

Size not too much of a factor. Don't mind spending about $800 if needed. Just want the best bang for the buck. Have been considering the Sigma 18-31 Art (looks like the focusing issues can be worked around), Pentax 20 40 (though am concerned about inconsistent sharpness at various lengths), the Pentax 18 65 (though worried about lack of bokeh and sharpness).
Perhaps I'm just asking for the impossible, but I'd love some feedback. Thanks in advance for your thoughts, and links to images with recommended lenses always appreciated :-)

I'd go for the Sigma 35mm F1.4. It's hard to beat its bokeh and sharpness, especially on APS-C! Other lenses like the DA* 55 and FA 77 limited are also great for portraits, but they're certainly not wide.

[yusuf]

Personally, I like FA31 or Sigma 30mm, both are excellent choices.

[Sandy Hancock]

When you say wide to portrait - do you mean a zoom? If so, the DA*16-50 fits the bill pretty well.
Otherwise, I'm with the FA31 like nearly everyone else.

[Paul the Sunman]

Wide to portrait? Sharp and great colour? WR? Good bokeh? Sounds like you are describing the new Pentax 16-85 perfectly!

[Papa Lazarou]

Have to agree with the FA 31mm for a prime or the DA* 16-50mm for a zoom. Both are terrific.

[Sagitta]

I'd go for the Sigma 35mm F1.4. It's hard to beat its bokeh and sharpness, especially on APS-C! Other lenses like the DA* 55 and FA 77 limited are also great for portraits, but they're certainly not wide.

Alternatively, theres the Samyang (and its rebrands) 35mm f/1.4. I have zero issues with mine other than the fact the lens is enormous. It doesn't have auto focus, but if you're cool with manual, its a cheap (and pretty amazing) alternative.

I'd love to see PF post a shoot-out between the Sigma, Samyang and 35mm f/2.4 some day just to see how the three lenses (4 if you toss in the 31 Ltd) lenses compare.

[Nicolas06]

To me if you want the greatest picture, this is usally a prime.

Some prime are not that great and some zooms are truely great, that true but then the question is where to draw the line?

You also speak of the best bang for the buck and that even more difficult because depending on who you are you'll put your priorities on different things.

If I interpret correctly, wide portrait is something where you have a full body portrait with some environment on the surrounding or at least this is not a headshoot.

With that it mind, I think FA31 f/1.8, FA43 f/1.9, sigma 35 Art f/1.4 come to mind.

I would say you could go even a bit wider to make the picture more intimate so the viewer is really sucked in the picture... but there no many new 24-28mm available on K mount.

Well if you accept to have more distance with the subject and this can be interresting outdoor, there nothing bad with something a bit longer too, so that DA*55 can be great choice too. You'd get the WR out of DA*55, and that would make sense outdoor for sure.

As for best bang for the buck, this is a bit different this would be more to me DA35 f/2.4, sigma 30mm f/1.4, DA50 f/1.8 with AF support. Already great and quite innexpensive. Without AF an old used manual focus lense would be also good.

[Prakticant]

Pentax DA* 50-135mm/2.8 is perfect portrait lens at its long end, so if you find 50mm wide enough...

[Nicolas06]

Pentax DA* 50-135mm/2.8 is perfect portrait lens at its long end, so if you find 50mm wide enough...

Having had one, many time I would have prefered 35-100mm f/2.8 than 50-135, at least for portraiture!

[robjmitchell]

A 24-70 zoom would work well for portraiture on APS-C to.